Lockett v. Comey
271 F. Supp. 3d 205
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Rodney Lockett, a Florida state prisoner, submitted a FOIA request seeking CODIS/NDIS DNA records and whether a specific trial exhibit (State’s Exhibit 2b) was submitted to the FBI for CODIS identification.
- DOJ Criminal Division routed the request to the FBI; the FBI denied the request under FOIA Exemption 3 (statutory restrictions on CODIS disclosures) and did not conduct a search, concluding any records would be exempt.
- DOJ’s Office of Information Policy affirmed that the FBI did not search because any responsive CODIS records would be statutorily exempt under 42 U.S.C. § 14132.
- The FBI explained CODIS/NDIS is not indexed by names, case numbers, or laboratory numbers accessible to the FBI; only the state/local laboratory that uploaded a profile can identify and retrieve person-linked records.
- Plaintiff filed this FOIA suit; he also moved for partial summary judgment seeking relief tied to his criminal prosecution and the evidentiary status of State’s Exhibit 2b.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of FBI search for CODIS records | Lockett argued FBI should have searched CODIS and that he provided a Florida lab number | FBI says NDIS/CODIS is not searchable by names, case or lab numbers by the FBI; only the uploading agency can retrieve person-linked records | Court held FBI reasonably declined to search because, by design, it cannot identify individual profiles from the information provided, so no FOIA violation for failing to search |
| Applicability of Exemption 3 / statutory restriction on CODIS data disclosure | Lockett sought disclosure of whether Exhibit 2b was submitted and any identification obtained | FBI relied on statutory scheme (42 U.S.C. § 14132) limiting CODIS disclosures and OIP’s affirmation that disclosures require particular statutory circumstances | Court accepted that any responsive CODIS entries would be subject to statutory restriction and that the FBI properly treated records as non-disclosable or non-searchable by FBI |
| Proper recipient for records | Lockett expected FBI to produce records based on provided state lab number | FBI pointed out that the Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement (state lab) controls identifiers and is the proper place to request such records; FOIA does not apply to state agencies | Court held Lockett must seek records from the state lab; FOIA did not obligate FBI to create or locate records it cannot access |
| Plaintiff’s motion on criminal-evidence/exculpatory claims | Lockett sought partial summary judgment about State’s Exhibit 2b and evidentiary issues tied to his criminal conviction | FBI argued these issues are beyond FOIA’s scope and concern criminal-review remedies (habeas) rather than FOIA disclosure duties | Court denied Lockett’s motion as outside FOIA’s remedial scope and jurisdiction; evidentiary/criminal-innocence claims were improper here |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Nat’l DNA Index Sys., 662 F. Supp. 2d 136 (D.D.C. 2009) (recognizing CODIS design prevents FBI from searching by person-identifiers)
- Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (agency affidavits describing search procedures can establish adequacy of FOIA search)
- Oglesby v. United States Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (a reasonably detailed affidavit can support summary judgment for agency on search adequacy)
- Willis v. DOJ, 581 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D.D.C. 2008) (FOIA does not create remedy against state or local entities; requester must pursue proper custodian)
- Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1980) (FOIA district court jurisdiction to compel agency disclosure)